The debate over gerrymandering often focuses on what partisan mapmaking means for election outcomes. But that's just the means to a policy-making end. A liberal think tank has just released its second report demonstrating how gerrymandering impacts legislative decisions, this time focusing on Medicaid.

CAP is part of a growing movement advocating for a change in the way congressional and state legislative district maps have traditionally been drawn. Rather than have state lawmakers decide, redistricting reform groups say, independent commissions should have the mapmaking authority.

"A fair process for drawing districts is fundamental to democracy, helping to ensure that voters' voices are heard on critical issues such as access to health care," the report states.

<p>Medicaid provides health insurance coverage to approximately 65 million low-income Americans, with costs jointly covered by the federal and state governments. And it is popular among Americans regardless of political party: Nearly three-quarters of Americans <a href="https://www.kff.org/medicaid/poll-finding/data-note-10-charts-about-public-opinion-on-medicaid/" target="_blank">have a favorable view of Medicaid</a>, including 82 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of Republicans.<br/></p>
<p>But because states — many with partisan gerrymanders — have the latitude to determine eligibility, millions of Americans have been hindered from accessing Medicaid, CAP reports. And yet, even in the 14 states that have yet to expand Medicaid since the Affordable Care Act coverage provisions were changed six years ago, <a href="https://www.kff.org/medicaid/poll-finding/data-note-10-charts-about-public-opinion-on-medicaid/" target="_blank">at least 71 percent of residents</a> support the program, according to a poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation.</p>
<p>CAP analyzed how Medicaid coverage was affected by gerrymandering in four red states: Georgia, North Carolina, Wisconsin and Michigan. The first three are among the 14 that have not expanded coverage. Conservatives in those legislatures have been largely opposed to Medicaid expansion, and partisan gerrymandering has given more seats to the GOP than what would have been allotted through a fair redistricting process, CAP reports.</p>
<p>For instance, in North Carolina, Democrats received a narrow majority of votes cast in the 2018 election, but Republican candidates won more seats. "Had Democrats received a share of the seats commensurate with their share of the votes — that is, a majority — they almost certainly would have expanded Medicaid," CAP argues in its report.</p>
<p>While Michigan was the sole state in the report to expand Medicaid, the Republican-controlled Legislature also opted to impose work requirements, meaning certain employment activities would need to be verified in order to receive coverage. Wisconsin's implementation of work requirements has been delayed until April. Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp favors adding such provisions in his state as well.</p>
<p>"Gerrymandering in these states has allowed conservative politicians to cater to the extreme right wing and oppose policies that would save thousands of lives at minimal cost to state taxpayers," said Alex Tausanovitch, CAP's director of campaign finance and electoral reform and co-author of the report.</p>
<p>Gerrymandering impacts every issue of public concern, Tausanovitch said. This report is the second by CAP detailing the effects of partisan mapmaking; the first analyzed <a href="https://thefulcrum.us/gun-control-laws" target="_self">state gun control laws</a>.</p>
<p>The most promising solution to combat partisan gerrymanders is state-sanctioned independent redistricting commissions. Fourteen states have already given such commissions the authority to draw state legislative districts starting in 2021. Eight of them will also use commissions to draw new congressional maps.</p>
<p>North Carolina's districts were redrawn last fall after a panel of judges ruled the old map violated the state Constitution's "fair elections" clause. In 2018, Michigan voters approved the implementation of a 13-member nonpartisan redistricting commission, which will be established later this year. And while support for redistricting reform is growing in Wisconsin, advocates in Georgia face more of an uphill battle.</p>

One of the most prominent talking points in the entire democracy reform movement is that curbing money's sway over elections is a prerequisite to fixing every one of the nation's biggest problems. Now critics of partisan gerrymandering are trying to piggyback on that concept.

In issuing the report Tuesday, the Center for American Progress, one of Washington's most influential liberal think tanks, joined the lengthening roster of groups advocating for states to take the drawing of political boundaries away from the politicians themselves in and turn the responsibility over to independent and nonpartisan panels.

<p>Fourteen states have already given such panels authority to draw state legislative lines starting in 2021, after the census exposes population shifts mandating new lines that confirm with the Constitution's one-person-one-vote requirement. Eight of them have also assigned the next congressional maps to commissions.</p><p>Several states with the full array of partisan power structures — reliably Democratic, solidly Republican and battleground — may soon join that list through legislation or a citizen-driven referendum, but maybe not in time for the next redistricting.</p><p>All five of the states studied by the Center for American Progress, or CAP, have been on center stage in the gerrymandering debate: North Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Virginia.</p><p>"In each of these states, it is likely, in the absence of partisan gerrymandering, that the legislature would have enacted measures to strengthen gun laws — measures that could have saved lives," the report concluded.</p><p>That's because all their legislative maps were successfully drawn at the start of the 2010s to assure that Republicans — who have remained almost unanimously opposed to additional regulation of firearms or new curbs on gun ownership — retained legislative control no matter how strong the Democratic vote in subsequent elections. And in last year's midterm, CAP notes, the GOP held control in four of the legislatures even though Democratic candidates won more total votes in state House contests in all of those states and in state Senate elections in three.</p><p>While 32 states and Washington, D.C., have enacted a combined 110 gun control measures in the nearly two years since 17 people were killed in a mass shooting at a high school in Parkland, Fla., the report details, no such bills have come close to becoming law in any of those five states despite extensive campaigns in each place.</p><p>"Partisan gerrymandering is one of the reasons why a public that supports stronger gun laws can be represented by state legislators who do nothing, even in the wake of severe episodes of gun violence," CAP said. "Even when there is bipartisan support for a particular gun policy, conservative leadership in many state legislatures persistently refuse to allow such bills to have a hearing or a vote, even if the bills have bipartisan support."</p><p>The situation is particularly problematic, the authors say, because a disproportionate share of gun violence victims are young people and members of racial minorities who live in deep blue Democratic urban areas — but policies that could help them are under the control of Republican red officials with disproportionate political power.</p><p>The good news, they say, is that overt partisanship in mapmaking is in jeopardy in all five states.</p><p>North Carolina's legislative lines were redrawn this fall after a panel of judges declared the old map a violation of the state Constitution's "fair elections" clause. A very similar ruling two years ago voided a Pennsylvania congressional map and could threaten the legislative maps as well. Michigan voters a year ago voted to create a nonpolitical redistricting commission by next year. A similar proposal could be on the Virginia ballot as soon as next fall. And legislation to do the same has growing grassroots support in Wisconsin. </p>

Foreign election interference is among the most troublesome challenges confronting democracy now — and not just by America's adversaries who hack votes and spread disinformation. Federal law is written to prevent allies and enemies alike from spending foreign money to influence American politics. But the loopholes are ample and they've been exploited for decades.

The Center for American Progress, one of the country's most prominent progressive public policy advocacy groups, has stepped forward with a solution — albeit a lofty one. On Thursday it outlined an ambitious proposal to virtually eliminate spending on U.S. campaigns by businesses under even minimal foreign influence.

As with so much else on the democracy reform agenda, however, the odds are prohibitive that any legislation along the lines CAP wants will get through the current Congress. Such bills might get through the Democratic House but are doomed in the Republican Senate, especially given Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's disdain for regulating campaign finance.

<p>The <a href="https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/2019/11/21/477468/ending-foreign-influenced-corporate-spending-u-s-elections-2/" target="_blank">proposed legislation unveiled by CAP</a> would prohibit election spending by corporations that meet any of three thresholds for overseas investment:<br></p><ul class="ee-ul"><li>A single foreigner owns or controls 1 percent or more of the corporation's equity.</li><li>Foreign shareholders combine to own or control 5 percent or more of the corporation's equity.</li><li>Any foreign entity participates in the corporation's decision-making process about election spending.</li></ul>
<p>Under these restrictions, CAP estimates, 98 percent of the nation's 500 biggest publicly traded companies would currently be barred from <a href="https://thefulcrum.us/campaign-finance/companies-disclose-political-spending" target="_self">political spending</a> — leaving fewer than a dozen businesses in the S&amp;P 500 index free to contribute to candidates and special-interest campaigns at will. The group estimates that slightly more than a quarter of smaller public companies would be similarly pushed out of the campaign financing world.</p>
<p>Just 5 percent of corporate stock in America was foreign-owned four decades ago, but that share has ballooned sevenfold to 35 percent as of 2017, CAP reports. For instance, Saudi Arabia owns about 10 percent of Uber, yet the ride-sharing company still spends millions to sway elections and ballot measures in every election.</p>
<p>In the decade since the Supreme Court, in the landmark <a href="http://thefulcrum.us/citizens-united" target="_self">Citizens United</a> case, struck down federal limits on corporate and union independent political spending as violating the First Amendment, such spending <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/01/citizens-united/" target="_blank">has set new records</a> in each two-year election cycle, according to the <a href="http://thefulcrum.us/center-for-responsive-politics" target="_self">Center for Responsive Politics</a>, which advocates for tighter campaign finance rules. And much of this spending is shrouded in mystery due to corporations using "<a href="http://thefulcrum.us/dark-money" target="_self">dark money</a>" groups — nonprofits that spend most of their money on political endeavors — to evade donor disclosure requirements.</p>
<p>Because many corporations spend on elections through these organizations, it's hard to determine just how much foreign influence there is. So the hope of policy proposals such as CAP's is that restricting corporate spending will address some aspects of foreign interference.</p>
<p>In her plan to "get big money out of politics," Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts backs these standards put forth by CAP. She's the only Democratic presidential candidate, so far, with a plan to implement such a proposal.</p>
<p>"It's time for lawmakers to close the loophole that allows foreign entities to use U.S. corporations to influence our elections. Imposing strict foreign ownership thresholds will help ensure that our elected representatives are accountable to Americans, not to corporate CEOs who are looking out for their foreign investors," said Michael Sozan, a senior fellow at CAP and author of the report.</p>